Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3739 ..

MR CORBELL (11.46), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members for their support. Mr Hird seems to be starting a new trend - that is, of believing what the minister says. I have to say that this is a groundbreaking trend which perhaps he is going to endeavour to impart upon the good residents of Mawson and Phillip. I say that because this government has a serious credibility problem when it comes to planning in Canberra. This government has a serious credibility problem with its approach to planning in Canberra, and that has been clearly demonstrated in relation to this issue.

I am grateful for the government's support of my motion but I have to express my concern about just how sincere that support is. We heard the minister reiterate in his speech that he believed that development should proceed on this site, that it can be done and that it should be done. Just what then is the purpose of the government supporting this motion if they do not themselves have an open mind as to whether or not there is a serious capacity for review of the site? Just how serious is their support? I would have to say that the only reason the government is prepared to support this motion is that to do otherwise would make their position even worse. Quite frankly, I think the community will understand that the government has been forced, as my colleague Mr Quinlan said, kicking and screaming into accepting this motion. This is highlighted by an article in The Chronicle a fortnight ago, and I will quote just the first paragraph.

A fortnight ago they said, "No, it's not needed. Don't need to do that. Mr Corbell is just scaremongering and irresponsible." That was a fortnight ago. What happened yesterday? The minister wrote a letter to Mr Hird and we are told, "The government will await the committee's report before progressing this issue further." Well, that is very welcome but I have to say again that the government has been forced kicking and screaming into accepting the motion because quite clearly the committee did not receive this letter until after I placed my motion on the notice paper yesterday. We are going to have to watch this government very closely on these issues because they simply do not have credibility and they simply do not have the confidence of the community when it comes to planning issues.

I want to raise just a couple of other issues that Mr Smyth spoke about. One relates to Mr Smyth's comment that Mawson has lots of urban open space. I did not mention urban open space in my speech. This motion is not about land designated urban open space, but I am happy to address the point. Mr Smyth said that he felt that Mawson had a very high level of urban open space. In fact, if I recall his comments correctly, he said that the only suburb in Woden with a higher level was Hughes.

Mr Smyth talks about not telling the full story. What Mr Smyth of course neglects to mention is that Mawson has district playing fields. It is no wonder that it has a higher level of urban open space. Mawson has district playing fields - playing fields meant not just for residents of Mawson but indeed residents from all of the surrounding areas in the Woden Valley. Of course Mawson has a higher level. It is interesting to note that the Mawson playing fields were identified as part of the government's hit list for urban infill development. They thought that was a pretty good site, along with, I should add, the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .